Optimizing Time and Resource Allocation Trade‐Offs for Investment into Morphological and Behavioral Defense

Steiner, U.; Pfeiffer, Thomas

doi:10.1086/509939

Cited by 67 publications

(78 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Over the 9-d assay period in which the M. sexta caterpillars remained responsive to predation risk, they did not acclimate to the presence of the predator, but did change the way in which they responded to predators. These temporally dynamic results are consistent with adaptive models of responses to predator exposure that predict combinations of antipredator strategies (38,39), and indicate that different strategies may be used over an extended period of predator exposure (10).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 75%

Compensatory mechanisms for ameliorating the fundamental trade-off between predator avoidance and foraging

Thaler

McArt²,

Kaplan

2012

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

147

164

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most organisms face the problem of foraging and maintaining growth while avoiding predators. Typical animal responses to predator exposure include reduced feeding, elevated metabolism, and altered development rate, all of which can be beneficial in the presence of predators but detrimental in their absence. How then do animals balance growth and predator avoidance? In a series of field and greenhouse experiments, we document that the tobacco hornworm caterpillar, Manduca sexta, reduced feeding by 30-40% owing to the risk of predation by stink bugs, but developed more rapidly and gained the same mass as unthreatened caterpillars. Assimilation efficiency, extraction of nitrogen from food, and percent body lipid content all increased during the initial phase (1-3 d) of predation risk, indicating that enhanced nutritional physiology allows caterpillars to compensate when threatened. However, we report physiological costs of predation risk, including altered body composition (decreased glycogen) and reductions in assimilation efficiency later in development. Our findings indicate that hornworm caterpillars use temporally dynamic compensatory mechanisms that ameliorate the trade-off between predator avoidance and growth in the short term, deferring costs to a period when they are less vulnerable to predation.antipredator behavior | nonconsumptive effects | predator-prey interactions | phenotypic plasticity F eeding is dangerous (1, 2). For many animals, reduced feeding is a common response to the watchful eyes of predators that exploit movement as a primary prey location cue (3, 4). In addition, metabolic rate typically increases in response to predation risk (5), potentially exacerbating the costs of reduced food intake. Organisms respond to predation risk and the corresponding food limitation through phenotypically plastic responses, including behavioral, physiological, and developmental changes (6-9). The integration of these factors to ameliorate the impacts of predator exposure has been little studied, however, especially over development during periods of chronic predation risk (10).After a period of food limitation and associated decreased growth (11, 12), many organisms increase growth through compensatory responses (13-15). Compensation after starvation can be achieved via increased consumption, increased metabolic or digestive efficiency, or altered developmental rate when food becomes available (16). Because predation risk is an important natural phenomenon that constrains foraging and induces physiological stress, compensatory mechanisms may be especially important in this context. Nonetheless, compensatory responses to predation risk, and their behavioral, physiological, and developmental underpinnings, are not well understood (17). Much of the research on responses to predator exposure has focused on behavioral changes in resource selection, where generalist foragers, such as elk and grasshoppers, switch habitat and diet use in the presence of predators (18,19). Little is known about physiological respon...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 75%

Compensatory mechanisms for ameliorating the fundamental trade-off between predator avoidance and foraging

Thaler

McArt²,

Kaplan

2012

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

147

164

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although morphology is generally viewed as being less flexible, it is clear that multiple morphological traits can 6 simultaneously change after exposure to environmental cues, such as those released by predators (Pfennig 1992;Relyea and Auld 2004). Consideration of the developmental and functional relationships among multiple, inducible traits should yield a better understanding of phenotypic design (Steiner 2007;Steiner and Pfeiffer 2007). The fitness consequences of multiple trait induction can be classified in two ways: (1) an inducible traits complex that is fully adaptive (i.e., all changes are adaptive) and (2) an inducible traits complex that involves both adaptive and maladaptive changes.…”

Section: Multiple Inducible Traits In Predator-prey Interactionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolutionary ecology of inducible morphological plasticity in predator–prey interaction: toward the practical links with population ecology

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The outcome of species interactions is often strongly influenced by variation in the functional traits of the individuals participating. A rather large body of work demonstrates that inducible morphological plasticity in predators and prey can both influence and be influenced by species interaction strength with important consequences for individual fitness. Much of the past research in this area has focused on the ecological and evolutionary significance of trait plasticity by studying single predatorprey pairs and testing the performance of individuals having induced and non-induced phenotypes. This research has thus been critical in improving our understanding of the adaptive value of trait plasticity and its widespread occurrence across species and community types. More recently, researchers have expanded this foundation by examining how the complexity of organismal design and community-level properties can shape plasticity in functional traits. In addition, researchers have begun to merge evolutionary and ecological perspectives by linking trait plasticity to community dynamics, with particular attention on trait-mediated indirect interactions. Here, we review recent studies on inducible morphological plasticity in predators and their prey with an emphasis on internal and external constraints and how the nature of predatorprey interactions influences the expression of inducible phenotypes. In particular, we focus on multiple-trait plasticity, flexibility and modification of inducible plasticity, and reciprocal plasticity between predator and prey. Based on our arguments on these issues, we propose future research directions that should better integrate evolutionary and population studies and thus improve our understanding of the role of phenotypic plasticity in predator-prey population and community dynamics.3 Keywords

show abstract

“…Others, such as morphology and life-history traits, generally take more time and energy to express and are not easily reversed. The benefits of such traits are thus dependent on the speed at which they can be expressed relative to both the onset and duration of risk (Steiner and Pfeiffer, 2007). Their expression is therefore limited by their underlying control mechanisms.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mechanisms underlying the control of responses to predator odours in aquatic prey

Mitchell

Bairos‐Novak

Ferrari

2017

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In aquatic systems, chemical cues are a major source of information through which animals are able to assess the current state of their environment to gain information about local predation risk. Prey use chemicals released by predators (including cues from a predator's diet) and other prey (such as alarm cues and disturbance cues) to mediate a range of behavioural, morphological and life-history antipredator defences. Despite the wealth of knowledge on the ecology of antipredator defences, we know surprisingly little about the physiological mechanisms that control the expression of these defensive traits. Here, we summarise the current literature on the mechanisms known to specifically mediate responses to predator odours, including dietary cues. Interestingly, these studies suggest that independent pathways may control predator-specific responses, highlighting the need for greater focus on predator-derived cues when looking at the mechanistic control of responses. Thus, we urge researchers to tease apart the effects of predator-specific cues (i.e. chemicals representing a predator's identity) from those of dietmediated cues (i.e. chemicals released from a predator's diet), which are known to mediate different ecological endpoints. Finally, we suggest some key areas of research that would greatly benefit from a more mechanistic approach.

show abstract

Optimizing Time and Resource Allocation Trade‐Offs for Investment into Morphological and Behavioral Defense

Cited by 67 publications

References 49 publications

Compensatory mechanisms for ameliorating the fundamental trade-off between predator avoidance and foraging

Compensatory mechanisms for ameliorating the fundamental trade-off between predator avoidance and foraging

Evolutionary ecology of inducible morphological plasticity in predator–prey interaction: toward the practical links with population ecology

Mechanisms underlying the control of responses to predator odours in aquatic prey

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About